This site is about we have the worst air traffic delays ever experienced, coupled, at the same time, with the lowest level of air safety ever experienced.  We thought that we would fix this.  It is, after all, neither difficult nor challenging.  There is only one thing keeping you from having this technology today: the FAA.
 
 

When you buy a ticket and board an aircraft, you will fly the freeways in the sky, and they are crowded!  Lowest level of safety ever, coupled with the worst delays ever, sayeth the FAA.  Why is that, do you suppose?  You are not safe if that is the case.  When you grab your pilot license and climb into your own airplane to travel, at least you can stay off of the highways in the sky, and get away from where it is crowded with other airplanes.  But you still are not safe.  See and avoid is a concept which doesn't work well, and the FAA broke ATCRBS, and there isn't anything else for collision avoidance.
 

We thought that it would be nice if we fixed ATCRBS after the FAA improved it to the point that it no longer works right, so we did that.  Then, we thought we would add true all-aircraft collision avoidance, and add terrain avoidance, and add obstruction avoidance, and add runway incursion avoidance, and do this for everywhere on the planet all of the time.  Then we added instrument landing to every runway on the planet, CatIIIc.  Call all of this EVFR, for electronic VFR.  It's done, it works.  We don't need funding, or help from the FAA.  By combining our collision avoidance system, which is compatible with the ICAO transponder standard, with the fix for ATCRBS, the two provide, for the first time ever, dual redundant collision avoidance systems - one manual ground based limited capacity, other everywhere everybody all of the time.  All we need now is for the FAA to get out of the way, and they are the only reason keeping you from having this technology today.

Is there a reason for this?  Here is a question for you to answer:  If we were allowed this, why would we need the $13.57B/year FAA?  The "pilot in command" could be the person in the front office of the airplane!  What would the FAA have to do, then; aside from just reorganizing large restricted airspace into, and aiding with arrival sequencing into approach corridors right around busy airports?  The fear is, that would not require 20,000 employees to service only ~3,000 airplanes with the worst delays ever experienced while we have the lowest level of safety ever experienced.
 
 

The first problem is that government does not get along well with technology.  Doesn't have any technologists.  Doesn't understand technology, so it doesn't like technology.  Some Proof:

Keith's fun after Georgetown PD wrote him a speeding ticket:
    Good for what does "full access to the courts" mean in Texas:
    http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/Fair_trial_Williamson.html

The second problem is that government does not even function.  Doesn't know how.  Some Proof:

Keith's fun after he got hit in the rear while stopped at a yield sign:
    Good for figuring what value is Nationwide insurance:
    Good for figuring what value is Steven Benton's small claims court:
    http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/ClaimAgainstNationwideInsuranceCompany.htm

Keith's fun after being called to jury duty:
    Good for figuring what value is any Williamson County court:
    http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/JuryDuty.htm

Keith's fun after an FAA licensed airplane fixer fixed Keith's airplane:
    http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/Keith_landing.htm

 

What other people report about the FAA:
    http://www.usatoday.com/life/travel/business/1999/t0129ac.htm
    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/travel/DailyNews/radar_faa990407.html

    http://www.cnn.com/TRAVEL/NEWS/9901/21/faa.radar/index.html

    http://www.avweb.com/articles/faalegal.html
    http://www.avweb.com/newswire/news0051a.html#1
    http://www.avweb.com/articles/faavsair.html
    http://www.avweb.com/articles/stcbroke.html
    http://www.avweb.com/articles/pilotwin.html
    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2001/01/12/003.html and search on "helsinki"
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010131/aponline145949_000.htm and search on "japan"
    http://members.aol.com/fsepulveda/PATCO/Patco.htm
    http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAUD9BJ8KC.html
    http://www.avweb.com/newswire/news0111b.html and search on "intersect"
    http://www.septentrio.com/downloads/press310101.pdf
    copy of congressional report & FAA IG report on the new FAA radar
    FAA radar tends to fall over, FAA certified collision avoidance doesn't work
    Entertainment center dangerous
    Dallas near crash, and incursion statistics
    http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAK047DGNC.html
    Well, cost you $300,000 if it's ADS-B, $500 if it's AIS-P
    http://www.avweb.com/newswire/news0127a.html#1
    http://www.avweb.com/newswire/news0128b.html#4

Research into how dumb are they:
    http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/dumb.htm
 
 

The second problem is that airplanes have serious safety issues because they (one or more of) don't know where they are (because there are clouds or low stratus [lost]), can't see the land because there are clouds or low stratus (might run into cumulo-dirt), can't see the runway because there are clouds or low stratus (might not land where it is free of obstructions when out of gas), can't see the other airplanes because they are tiny and everybody moves really fast and there might be clouds or low stratus (might run into one).

People that don't know what an airplane is (FAA) shouldn't be the ones to decide how to fix this.

    http://www.avweb.com/articles/lrntofly/peshak.html

Keith looks around for technology to navigate with: